Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 8 July, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.11747 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 08.7.2010
Dilbagh Singh and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Others ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent no.1.
Mr.Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3, respectively. Keeping in view the prayer made and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage.
Leanred counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been duly appointed by the respondents as Guest Faculty Lecturer in University College, Kurukshetra. Petitioners have an apprehension of being replaced by somebody else by the similar temporary arrangement. CWP No.11747 of 2010 2
It is settled principle of law that a temporary arrangement cannot be replaced by a similar temporary arrangement. The respondents are, however, at liberty to make appointment on regular substantive basis by making appropriate advertisement in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the respondents cannot be permitted to replace the petitioners to substitute them by similar contractual/temporary arrangements.
In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the petitioners be not replaced by similar arrangements, except if their services are not needed or unsuitability. However, the respondents are at liberty to make appointment on regular substantive basis by following the appropriate procedure under law. In that eventuality, the petitioners would make way for regularly appointed employees. However, they would be at liberty to apply for the post, subject to their qualification and eligibility.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 08.7.2010 MFK